Media Censorship of Antiwar Protests

Yeah, and FAIR would never distort anything.

Isn't it funny that the same people who never believe anything the CIA says, believe that the CIA was dealing crack in the US, etc., are now so willing to believe everything the director of the CIA says in a letter? Is this the same CIA that did such a wonderful job analyzing and disseminating information prior to September 11, 2001?

You want to know something about that London demo? First of all, there was a bigger demonstration in London a couple of weeks back that got even less coverage here than the "anti-war" demonstration. It was a pro-fox hunting demonstration.

LONDON (AP) - To the blare of hunting horns and the shriek of whistles, about 400,000 people marched through the streets of London on Sunday to support fox hunting and the rural way of life.

The march, billed as Britain's largest civil protest in 150 years, drew farmers, gamekeepers, and hunting enthusiasts with a clear message for Prime Minister Tony Blair.

"Blair, ban hunting and we will boot you out," read placards held by tweed-clad demonstrators as they marched 20 abreast through the streets, bringing much of the city to a standstill.

"We are here to show Mr. Blair that we won't go away, we won't be quiet. He is talking about changing our way of life and that's just not on," said John Gammell, a gamekeeper from Yorkshire, northern England.

EDIT: The police numbers for the war demo in London were 150,000, while the numbers for the fox hunt demo were 400,000. What does that tell you?

 

I agree with you that the media coverage has been dominated by the pro-war camp recently (just based on my own anecdotal evidence -- if someone would like to combine the left wing FAIR analysis with the right wing AIM analysis maybe we can arrive at a more scientific evaluation.) But I don't think this bias is the result of censorship. If you're claiming that it is, then what is your proof?

I think one of the reasons for the bias is that the American public is still riding this huge wave of post-Sept 11 patriotism. Newsroom editors are not immune to this, and although they may do a good job of striving for objectivity when it comes to covering, say, religion, they are not quite as earnest in their attempts to be objective about international conflicts in which the US is involved. I doubt that anyone is being censored for his or her anti-war opinions.

I'm sure you've considered how the US media deals with the war casualty of an American as opposed to the war casualty of a non-American. Without a doubt, the US media places more significance on the loss of an American life. To simplify, there are two possible responses to this bias in the coverage. One is to claim that it is valid and makes perfect sense given that the US media is aimed at informing Americans and that we as Americans identify more strongly with other Americans and are, therefore, more troubled by this loss than by a comparable loss of a non-American (also the loss of an American is more likely to be a friend or family member, thus making it all the more troubling). Another possible response is to claim that it is unfairly biased as all humans are equal and worthy of respect, and that the loss of a non-American life is no less tragic than the loss of an American life. I'm not going to argue one side or the other for now, but I think this is a good framework for discussion.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/West/10/08/anti.war.movement.ap/



Anti-war activists in Los Angeles, California, march Sunday to protest a possible war against Iraq.

Maybe we can play a Where's Waldo type game here. Can anyone pick out Dan Loney?

 

Gee, I must have been watching different media outlets, because I saw them talk about the London and San Francisco protests....

And I've seen plenty of anti-war commentaries in the Rocky Mountain news. Maybe we are just more fair here in the Rockies...

 

Re: Re: Media Censorship of Antiwar Protests

That we need to send 400,000 people to Australia, colonial style.

 

There was an anti-war rally in Washington a couple of weeks ago. Because it was a "local" event, i.e., not many people came in from out of town and it wasn't that large, the Post ran the story in the Metro section instead of the front page. However, they printed SIX color photos of the proceedings, an extraordinary number for any event, with the possible exception of a Redskins' game.

 

True dat, and my local neighborhood paper also covered it. The corporate elites seem to be doing a pretty poor job of keeping the lid on this story.

 

They've been too busy inter-locking.

 

Here's an interesting question:

Do the anti-war protestors symbolize an undercurrent in the American public, or is it just the same people who always protest military action?

Polls suggest that the American public is convinced that going to war in Iraq is a good idea ONLY if we're at the head of an international coalition.

So do the peace demonstrators matter in the larger sense? What if they're not being covered because independent research shows that they're not newsworthy?

I think there's some of that going on here. Let's face it. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein IS a good idea. Leaving him in power is a bad idea. But going into Iraq alone in the face of stiff international opposition is a worse idea.

To be blunt, I'm still worried by the Arab League's declaration that an attack on Iraq is an aattack on all Arabs. It might be a good idea to get a few Arab nations on our side before we go and stick our noses in. Precipitating general war in the Middle East is really not a good idea in my mind.

 

Re: Re: Media Censorship of Antiwar Protests

...that the police think of a number and multiply it by at least 3 or 4. The "fox hunt" demo was actually about rural life being eroded, the fox-hunting lobby just tagged themselves onto it to get publicity.

Maybe the TV companies want a war because it makes good TV.

 

Can you show us again how interlocking elites prop up McDonalds? That was a a classic...

 

Re: Re: Re: Media Censorship of Antiwar Protests

I'll say...

 

Re: Re: Media Censorship of Antiwar Protests

That we should be bombing foxes and not Iraqies?

 

Agreed. I wonder how many Americans would support this war if they knew their sons will likely be drafted to serve in the occupation forces which will be there for 10-15 years? What will their opinion be when their sons come home in body bogs or missing limbs 8 years from now in the postwar guerilla warfare which will surely ensue? Is this all worth it to ensure cheap gas for the US, Europe, and Japan?

I've seen the offerings on CNN and Fox and they are mainly short sighted rah-rah pieces supporting the impending war. The vote in the Senate today was truly sad because they voted yes with full knowledge that the issue is a winner in the upcoming elections. Only a few like Robert Byrd stepped up to speak with any courage. I wonder how they would have voted if the elections were not just a few weeks away...

If we do this without a viable coalition, we deserve whatever loss in power and prestige comes our way. In their hubris, Bush and Rumsfeld forget that despite our capability to win the war quickly alone, we need a real coalition to win the peace.

If Bush has compelling but sensitive evidence for why he wants to topple Hussein, at least share it with our Allies' leaders so they can make an informed decision. If he does not have compelling evidence, perhaps we should just dust off George Kennan's thoughts on containment and go from there.

 

When did the Senate vote? If they did, why the hell is John Warner still rambling? He needs a nap.

 

riiiiiiiight, its about the cheap gas. i usually keep my comments to myself but that is one stupid comment. i am not implying you are stupid, but that comment definitely is. the gulf war in the early '90's was about cheap gas too, right?

 

You didn't make any friends with that comment.

 

Oh that's right, its all about freedom and democracy. How stupid of me to forget the party line.

 

i am not here to make friends (or enimies), i was taken aback by hunters comments, and felt the need to comment myself.

i find it very foolish to think our invlovement has anything to do with cheap gas.

also, to go back to the subject line, the media also censored bush's speech on monday in that only one major station carried it live (fox).

 

What, you don't like cheap gas?

 

Re: Re: Media Censorship of Antiwar Protests

That's not how the liberals see it.

Did I just say that?

 

Re: Re: Media Censorship of Antiwar Protests

Well, let's see. Hussein threatens his neighbors and the possibility of use of WMD in the region could stand to either contaminate the oil supply or drastically reduce access to it. If access to Middle Eastern oil is not secured in the long term, supply goes down which raises prices. With so much of the US, European, and Japanese economies dependent on relatively low fuel prices, it makes perfect sense that we would want to ensure cheap gas to sustain viable economic growth. A sharp rise in oil prices can sap profits quickly and put many industries in the red. What is at stake is our economic viability. Nations (including ours) have gone to war for far less.

If basic economics are in your eyes foolish, then call me a fool all you like.

 

Re: Re: Re: Media Censorship of Antiwar Protests

Or you could ask if saddam had invaded Iran would anybody have cared?

 

i attended the protest in chicago. there were anywhere from 5 to 10k people. it lasted hours, and for a while michigan avenue was blocked as a march took place. next day i got both of our papers, and told my girlfriend i bet they don't mention it. there were exactly three sentences buried in the metro section of the chicago tribune, and not a peep in the sun times. unbelievable, but sadly true.